Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Obesity strongly predicts clinically undetected multiple lymph node metastases in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients who underwent robot assisted radical prostatectomy and extended lymph node dissection

  • Urology - Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the association between obesity and risk of multiple lymph node metastases in prostate cancer (PCa) patients with clinically localized EAU intermediate and high-risk classes staged by extended pelvic lymph-node dissection (ePLND) during robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

Materials and methods

373 consecutive PCa intermediate or high-risk patients were treated by RARP and ePLND. According to pathology results, extension of LNI was classified as absent (pN0 status) or present (pN1 status); pN1 was further categorized as one or more than one (multiple LNI) lymph node metastases. A logistic regression model (univariate and multivariate analysis) was used to evaluate the association between significant categorized clinical factors and the risk of multiple lymph nodes metastases.

Results

Overall, after surgery lymph node metastases were detected in 51 patients (13.7%) of whom 22 (5.9%) with more than one metastatic lymph node and 29 (7.8%) with only one positive node. Comparing patients with one positive node to those without, EAU high-risk class only predicted risk of single LNI (OR = 2.872; p = 0.008).

The risk of multiple lymph node metastases, when compared to cases without LNI, was independently predicted by BMI ≥ 30 (OR = 6.950; p = 0.002) together with BPC ≥ 50% (OR = 3.910; p = 0.004) and EAU high-risk class (OR = 6.187; p < 0.0001). Among metastatic patients, BMI ≥ 30 was the only factor associated with the risk of multiple LNI (OR = 5.250; p = 0.041).

Conclusions

In patients with clinically localized EAU intermediate and high-risk classes PCa who underwent RARP and ePLND, obesity was a risk factor of multiple LNI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferlay J et al (2015) Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 136(5):E359–E386

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mottet N et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71(4):618–629

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fossati N et al (2017) The benefits and harms of different extents of lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 72(1):84–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mohler JL et al (2019) Prostate cancer, version 2.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J National Compr Cancer Netw 17(5):479–505

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Oberlin DT et al (2016) The effect of minimally invasive prostatectomy on practice patterns of American urologists. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. Elsevier.

  6. Nassar ZD et al (2018) Peri-prostatic adipose tissue: the metabolic microenvironment of prostate cancer. BJU Int 121(Suppl 3):9–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Arnold M et al (2016) Obesity and cancer: an update of the global impact. Cancer Epidemiol 41:8–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bandini M, Gandaglia G, Briganti A (2017) Obesity and prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 27(5):415–421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cacciamani GE et al (2019) Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer: should the Cloquet's nodes dissection be considered only an option? Minerva Urol Nefrol 71(2):136–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Porcaro AB et al (2019) Lymph nodes invasion of marcille's fossa associates with high metastatic load in prostate cancer patients undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the role of "marcillectomy". Urol Int 103(1):25–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Epstein JI et al (2016) The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 40(2):244–252

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Perera M et al (2016) Sensitivity, specificity, and predictors of positive (68)Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 70(6):926–937

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. van Kalmthout LWM et al (2020) Prospective validation of Gallium-68 prostate specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for primary staging of prostate cancer. J Urol 203(3):537–545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dell’ Oglio P, Mottrie A, Mazzone E (2020) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy vs open radical prostatectomy latest evidences on perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes. Curr Opinion Urol 30(1):73–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tafuri A, Sebben M, Pirozzi M et al (2020) Predictive factors of the risk of long-term hospital readmission after primary prostate surgery at a single tertiary referral center: preliminary report. Urol Int 104(5–6):465–475. https://doi.org/10.1159/000505409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Porcaro AB et al (2016) Robotic assisted radical prostatectomy accelerates postoperative stress recovery: final results of a contemporary prospective study assessing pathophysiology of cortisol peri-operative kinetics in prostate cancer surgery. Asian J Urol 3(2):88–95

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Weingartner K et al (1996) Anatomical basis for pelvic lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer: results of an autopsy study and implications for the clinic. J Urol 156(6):1969–1971

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Heidenreich A, Varga Z, Von Knobloch R (2002) Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: high incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol 167(4):1681–1686

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schumacher MC et al (2008) Good outcome for patients with few lymph node metastases after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 54(2):344–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Touijer KA et al (2014) Long-term outcomes of patients with lymph node metastasis treated with radical prostatectomy without adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy. Eur Urol 65(1):20–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Briganti A et al (2009) Two positive nodes represent a significant cut-off value for cancer specific survival in patients with node positive prostate cancer. A new proposal based on a two-institution experience on 703 consecutive N+ patients treated with radical prostatectomy, extended pelvic lymph node dissection and adjuvant therapy. Eur Urol 55(2):261–270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. De Nunzio C et al (2013) Abdominal obesity as risk factor for prostate cancer diagnosis and high grade disease: a prospective multicenter Italian cohort study. Urol Oncol 31(7):997–1002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kelly SP, Graubard BI, Andreotti G, Younes N, Cleary SD, Cook MB (2016) Prediagnostic body mass index trajectories in relation to prostate cancer incidence and mortality in the PLCO cancer screening trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 109(3):djw225. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw225

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Jentzmik F et al (2014) Corpulence is the crucial factor: association of testosterone and/or obesity with prostate cancer stage. Int J Urol 21(10):980–986

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Freedland SJ, Branche BL, Howard LE et al (2019) Obesity, risk of biochemical recurrence, and prostate-specific antigen doubling time after radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH database. BJU Int 124(1):69–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14594

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gacci M et al (2017) Meta-analysis of metabolic syndrome and prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 20(2):146–155

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Oh JJ et al (2013) Diabetes mellitus is associated with short prostate-specific antigen doubling time after radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 45(1):121–127

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Porcaro AB, Sebben M, Tafuri A et al (2019) Body mass index is an independent predictor of Clavien-Dindo grade 3 complications in patients undergoing robot assisted radical prostatectomy with extensive pelvic lymph node dissection. J Robot Surg 13(1):83–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-018-0824-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Davies NM et al (2015) The effects of height and BMI on prostate cancer incidence and mortality: a Mendelian randomization study in 20,848 cases and 20,214 controls from the PRACTICAL consortium. Cancer Causes Control 26(11):1603–1616

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Tafuri A, Sebben M, Shakir A et al (2020) Endogenous testosterone mirrors prostate cancer aggressiveness: correlation between basal testosterone serum levels and prostate cancer European Urology Association clinical risk classes in a large cohort of Caucasian patients. Int Urol Nephrol 52(7):1261–1269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-020-02398-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang K et al (2017) Association between age-related reductions in testosterone and risk of prostate cancer-an analysis of patients' data with prostatic diseases. Int J Cancer 141(9):1783–1793

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Porcaro AB, Tafuri A, Sebben M et al (2020) High body mass index predicts multiple prostate cancer lymph node metastases after radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Asian J Androl 22(3):323–329. https://doi.org/10.4103/aja.aja_70_19

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Ho T et al (2012) Obesity, prostate-specific antigen nadir, and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: biology or technique? Results from the SEARCH database. Eur Urol 62(5):910–916

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Pfitzenmaier J et al (2009) Is the body mass index a predictor of adverse outcome in prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy in a mid-European study population? BJU Int 103(7):877–882

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors did not receive financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Benito Porcaro.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tafuri, A., Amigoni, N., Rizzetto, R. et al. Obesity strongly predicts clinically undetected multiple lymph node metastases in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients who underwent robot assisted radical prostatectomy and extended lymph node dissection. Int Urol Nephrol 52, 2097–2105 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-020-02554-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-020-02554-3

Keywords

Navigation